United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.
Richard Turner, an inmate in Alton Law Enforcement Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
nominal and punitive damages, as well as “this facility
shut down as a permanent housing facility.” This case
is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under
§ 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
originally filed suit with several co-plaintiffs on October
10, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The Court entered a
Boriboune Order warning plaintiffs of the risks of
multi-party litigation, and as a result, several plaintiffs
dropped out of the suit. Id. The Court then screened
the Complaint on January 10, 2018 and found that some claims
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
and a fourth claim was legally frivolous. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The
Court directed the plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint no
later than February 8, 2018 on Counts 1-3. Id.
Instead of filing a joint amended complaint, plaintiffs filed
individual amended complaints. Id. On this basis,
and because plaintiffs' claims did not appear to arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20, the Court severed that action and placed
each plaintiff in his own suit. (Doc. 1). This matter is now
before the Court to screen the Complaint filed by Richard
Turner on February 8, 2018, and severed into this action on
March 1, 2018. (Doc. 2).
alleges that his rights are violated when shower and cell
cleaning time is included in his hour of daily recreation.
(Doc. 2, p. 7). Plaintiff also lacks proper cleaning
supplies. Id. The shower is not properly maintained.
Id. The inmates lack access to a law library per
cell doesn't have any heat because of Cook and Crammer.
(Doc. 2, pp. 7, 18). Plaintiff's grievance alleges that
he has to stay covered up because of the cold. (Doc. 2, pp.
rights were violated by Philips on November 22, 2017. (Doc.
2, p. 8). Plaintiff's grievance on this issue shows that
he wasn't allowed to use nail clippers. (Doc. 2, p. 15).
rights were violated by Cook on November 2, 2017, and also on
January 9, 2018, and January 10, 2018 because she cut into
inmate's recreation time. (Doc. 2, pp. 8, 13). A response
to the grievance regarding the November 2 incident describes
it as a denial of recreation suggests that the inmates were